The question of suitably naming the new planet soon came to the fore. Herschel himself proposed to designate it the "Georgium Sidus," in honor of his patron, George III., just as Galileo had called the satellites of Jupiter the "Medicean stars," after Cosmo de' Medici. But La Place proposed that the planet should be named after its discoverer; and thus it was frequently referred to as "Herschel," and sometimes as "The Herschelian planet." Astronomers on the continent objected to this system of personal nomenclature, and argued that the new body should receive an appellative in accordance with those adopted for the old planets, which had been selected from the heathen mythology. Several names were suggested as suitable (on the basis of this principle), and ultimately the one advanced by Bode received the most favor, and the planet thereafter was called "Uranus." The varying positions of the new body as observed on successive nights were determined by comparisons with a group of six small stars, termed by Herschel [Greek: alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon] and afterwards formed into a constellation under the designation of "Britannia," though it does not appear that this little asterism is acknowledged as one of our constellations. Its position is about midway between Taurus and Gemini, and the following are the principal stars computed for 1881.0, as given by Mr. Marth: Star. Magnitude. Right Ascension. Declination. h. m. s. alpha 9.0 5 42 6.06 23° 35' 6.7" N. eta 8.7 5 43 17.82 23 26' 7.2 N. theta 8.8 5 44 0.99 23 53' 30.8 N. epsilon 8.8 5 45 40.68 23 34' 46.8 N. The stars are therefore merely telescopic, and are confined to a small area of space, so that the propriety of adopting the group as a distinct constellation is very questionable. Their positions close to Uranus at the time of its discovery, and the fact that the planet's motion was detected by means of comparisons with them, has given to these stars an historical interest which in future years must often attract the student to their reobservation. But it would be unwise, as forming a bad precedent, to accept a group of stars of this inferior type as meriting to rank among the old constellations, when we have numbers of richer groups, situated on their confines, which first deserve such a distinction. However special or unique the circumstances connected with certain telescopic stars may be, and however necessary it may appear to signalize them by a specific title, we are inclined to question the adoption of such means as likely to exercise a wrong influence, inasmuch as it may hereafter originate further innovations of a similar character, and ultimate complications will be certain to arise.